A simple eye consists of a few light-sensitive cells. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s it. The next step in complexity is some sort of lens, so that an image can be focused.

Even if these reactions result in better resistance, which is rationally all that would ever happen, they don't produce an eye.

Why would it result in resistance? As I already explained, the animal would be exposed to the same amount of light whether it could see it or not. Even if UV light is very harmful to the animal, there would be no reason for it to lose the ability to detect it. In fact, that would be a reason for light sensitivity to stick around in that animal. When we touch something thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hot, we burn our hands. We havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t developed a resistance to the pain associated with burns, because itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s useful to our survival.

You said, "If the right components were placed next to each other,...", what/Who "places" those "components next to each other"?

Chemistry. More specifically, the laws of kinetics and thermodynamics that determine which direction a reaction will proceed in, and which way a protein will fold.

When I posted the OP I really did have in mind what we observe today as eyes and ears

If thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s what you had in mind, then you were already setting yourself up to believe that eye evolution is impossible. Of course something is impossible when you take out all the steps in between, the first of which would be the development of a reactive pigment. You canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t go from no eyes to complex eyes and brains in a single step.

And that a thing can sense air pressure changes doesn't mean it can "hear".

I already agreed with you on that. But as I said, hearing is nothing more than sensitivity to pressure changes. If you can detect the changes in air pressure which correspond to sound waves, you can hear.

There is no explanation, from evolution, that gives us the reason why/how eyes and/or ears ever came into existence.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve given you an explanation. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve explained how a mutation could lead to a pigment which reacts with light. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve explained how pressure sensitivity is useful, and the most sensitive animals will be more likely to survive.

Why did you truncate my post? You completely changed the meaning of the question when you did.

You offered that you could technically imagine how the evolution of the other senses could come about. My question was simply if you could "technically imagine" the how's of the other senses, then why is there any difficulty with eyes and ears...

My point in asking it is that those other senses aren't necessarily any less complex than sight and hearing. granted we get more info from our sight than any other sense, but that is because sight is such an advantage in the proper environments.

I did truncate your post, but I did not misunderstand your question. And that's my point, even with my "evolutionary imagination" I can not come up with a why/how for eyes and/or ears. (Actually, I really stretched my evo imagination for the others as well. In all sincerity, I can not fathom why/how eyes and/or ears would ever exist in an evolutionary world.)

A simple eye consists of a few light-sensitive cells. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s it. The next step in complexity is some sort of lens, so that an image can be focused.

Why would it result in resistance? As I already explained, the animal would be exposed to the same amount of light whether it could see it or not. Even if UV light is very harmful to the animal, there would be no reason for it to lose the ability to detect it. In fact, that would be a reason for light sensitivity to stick around in that animal. When we touch something thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hot, we burn our hands. We havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t developed a resistance to the pain associated with burns, because itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s useful to our survival.

Being burned has two possible scientific results:1. Stay away from what burned you.2. Develop a resistance to what continues to burn you;___ Two examples:___ 2a. develop darkened skin.___ 2b. develop callous(es).

Chemistry. More specifically, the laws of kinetics and thermodynamics that determine which direction a reaction will proceed in, and which way a protein will fold.

What/Who makes those laws and determinations?(I'll keep asking)

If thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s what you had in mind, then you were already setting yourself up to believe that eye evolution is impossible. Of course something is impossible when you take out all the steps in between, the first of which would be the development of a reactive pigment. You canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t go from no eyes to complex eyes and brains in a single step.

I don't believe in evolution, let alone eye evolution. So my presupposition was not hidden. If you, or any evolutionist, can come up with a valid first cause then you might have an argument worth considering.

I already agreed with you on that. But as I said, hearing is nothing more than sensitivity to pressure changes. If you can detect the changes in air pressure which correspond to sound waves, you can hear.

What I agree with is that sound vibrations (air pressure changes) can be "sensed" without hearing.

I do not agree that air pressure detection, whether from sound waves or otherwise, is "hearing".

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve given you an explanation. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve explained how a mutation could lead to a pigment which reacts with light. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve explained how pressure sensitivity is useful, and the most sensitive animals will be more likely to survive.

Still no rationale though, only saying it "could" happen.Still saying it happened because "it's useful".Still "FAITH"!

You're starting with the fact that there are eyes and/or ears and going backward; sort of trying to reverse engineer them. You must start with no eyes/ears and come up with a rational why/how they would start to evolve. Again, even in my silly imagined evolutionary why/how for mouth/nose/arms, it can't happen!

Just because there is light and things to see, is not a reason for eyes, unless there's Something/SomeONE that determines it so.

In the same way, just because there is sound, predators running/flying, is not a reason for ears, unless there's Something/SomeONE that determines it so.

Anything and everything that we've observed changes in (microevolution) already had the something that changed. In your example of the green and orange caterpillars, they are just changing color, they had color, they changed color. Even if they didn't have "color" (bright color); they were just brown/grey, and they adapted and are now green or orange, it's still just an adaptation to something that already existed!

Being burned has two possible scientific results:1. Stay away from what burned you.2. Develop a resistance to what continues to burn you;___ Two examples:___ 2a. develop darkened skin.___ 2b. develop callous(es).

Ok... but as IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve said a couple times now, developing a pigment which detects light does not make the organism more exposed to light. If itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s in an environment with harmful UV rays, it would develop a resistance regardless of whether it could see the light or not. Detection in itself is not dangerous.

What/Who makes those laws and determinations?(I'll keep asking)

YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re asking what makes the laws of thermodynamics and kinetics possible? Well, the entropy and enthalpy of the products vs. the reactants. The available enzymes. The polarity and chemical nature of the solute. The concentrations of the reactants. The stability of the intermediates. The electronegativity and ionic charges on the reactants and products. The pH of the solution. The temperate and pressure of the solution. The list goes on.

I do not agree that air pressure detection, whether from sound waves or otherwise, is "hearing".

If you are able to detect the changes in sound waves as they travel through the air, you are hearing. Look at the structure (or design, as you would call it) of the human ear. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a mechanoreceptor: itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s stimulated by pressure changes. There is no other stimulus that is needed for hearing. It seems as though you think that something else is needed for hearing, in addition to pressure reception. Maybe you could elaborate on what that is.

Anything and everything that we've observed changes in (microevolution) already had the something that changed.

For sight, I said that an existing protein mutated and became reactive when exposed to light. For hearing, I said that an existing pressure receptor increased in sensitivity. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m working with existing structures. Evolution does not claim that a single mutation would magically create a functional photoreceptor. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a step-by-step process, and it builds on whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s already there.

I did truncate your post, but I did not misunderstand your question. And that's my point, even with my "evolutionary imagination" I can not come up with a why/how for eyes and/or ears. (Actually, I really stretched my evo imagination for the others as well. In all sincerity, I can not fathom why/how eyes and/or ears would ever exist in an evolutionary world.)

In evolutionary terms using the natural selection mechanism (survival of the fittest) the eye would have started out as a very simple mutation, this mutation, which most likely would have been a light sensing mutation, could have allowed the organism to sense the light and allow the organism to make more use of sunlight which could have had Vitamin D beneficiary advantage, it may have also allowed the organism to detect predators more easily (althugh this would be unlikely considering that the light sensing mutation would be very simple in its first stages), organisms with this advantage had a better chance of survival and better health and therefore a better chance of reproducing and thus doing so passed on their genes to the next generation.

The last two posts, by Isabella and OneHourPhoto, respectively, still include assumption. They still begin with the fact that eyes and ears do exist, so they speculate possible first causation because they must; since eyes and ears do exist, they must have evolved, so this is possibly how they started. None of this explains the why/how though. None of this gives us the rationale behind the why/how.

If we were to accept that these "sensitivities" were seeing and hearing, and for the recordI do not! I have more questions:How does light sensitivity become an eye? Why does it even need to?How does air pressure sensitivity become an ear? Why does it even need to?

The following answers, if given, would be something like:Maybe this, possibly that, this could have so and so, it is likely thus and so.

They still begin with the fact that eyes and ears do exist, so they speculate possible first causation because they must; since eyes and ears do exist, they must have evolved, so this is possibly how they started.

The question you asked in your original post was how evolution can explain the presence of eyes and ears. I am not making an assumption. I am merely sharing with you a possible evolutionary mechanism, because that is what you asked for. DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t ask for an explanation in terms of evolution and then say that weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re Ã¢â‚¬Å“speculatingÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“assumingÃ¢â‚¬Â when we attempt to give you one.

None of this explains the why/how though. None of this gives us the rationale behind the why/how.

Could you please be more specific? I told you a why and how, yet you keep asking without telling me what exactly my response is missing. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll say it again, and this time maybe you could let know what IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m failing to include:

For eyes, and existing protein undergoes a random mutation that makes it react to light and this reaction is detected by the cell. Why did light detection happen? Because there was an error in DNA replication or transcription that shifted, added or removed a portion of the gene coding for the protein. As a result, the amino acid sequence was different. How did detection happen? Chemistry. Certain molecules react when exposed to light, including various protein-based pigments.

And for the ear, well I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really say much more until you answer my previous question: how would you define hearing and sound?

The last two posts, by Isabella and OneHourPhoto, respectively, still include assumption. They still begin with the fact that eyes and ears do exist, so they speculate possible first causation because they must; since eyes and ears do exist, they must have evolved, so this is possibly how they started. None of this explains the why/how though. None of this gives us the rationale behind the why/how.

Bob,

I think you need to re-phrase your question better then. You have asked for the why/how, and it has been given to you numerous times now. What is it you are trying to find out?

If we were to accept that these "sensitivities" were seeing and hearing, and for the recordI do not! I have more questions:How does light sensitivity become an eye? Why does it even need to?How does air pressure sensitivity become an ear? Why does it even need to?

The following answers, if given, would be something like:Maybe this, possibly that, this could have so and so, it is likely thus and so.

I will attempt to answer these questions.

As more an more species have this mutation competition for food and mates gives advantage to those with better photo receptors. Better photo receptors come about from different mutations that work with the already established light reactive proteins.

The hearing would follow a similar path.

In fact everything follows a similar path. Small mutation/adaptation becomes set in a population. A further mutation further acts on this set attribute and either increases the effectiveness of the attribute, or diminishes it. If the increase gives it the ability to survive better, than this mutation can spread through the population.

*Faith in* evolution (*or the religion of*) is strong in these ones

I find it humorous when Creationists mock another group when they perceive the other group has 'faith' in something. Its almost like they are saying that its crazy to have 'faith'... And its not even a faith based argument that has been given up to this point.

I find it humorous when Creationists mock another group when they perceive the other group has 'faith' in something.Ã‚Â Its almost like they are saying that its crazy to have 'faith'...Ã‚Â And its not even a faith based argument that has been given up to this point.

I really don't mean to mock evo's for having faith, I am merely pointing out that we are the same; you have faith in your worldview and we have faith in ours. That's all, just a leveling of the playing field. At the same time, I think it odd that you evo's don't admit that it is faith, you actually say that you know evolution is true.

There is no way evolution can answer this query with any confidence...why did Eyes and Ears evolve?(forget about the complexity, let's just say they're simple for the sake of this topic)

Creation gives a real good reason, God wants us to experience His creation to the fullest.

Evolution has no reason to have Eyes and Ears! Even if "evolution" decided to "evolve" eyes and ears, where would "it" have gotten the idea from? (wait, this is sounding like evolution has intelligence, hold on, wait) hmmm, I can't come up with any "reason" why "evolution" would "evolve" eyes and ears.

Light can be reacted to, or responded to, without eyes.Sound (air pressure / vibrations) can be "felt" without ears.

Those 2 sentences are the gist of my point. With evolution, there is no reason for eyes and/or ears to ever have evolved.

It is a step of faith to say that "evolution" did it. It's no different from me saying "God" did it.

I find it humorous when Creationists mock another group when they perceive the other group has 'faith' in something. Its almost like they are saying that its crazy to have 'faith'... And its not even a faith based argument that has been given up to this point.

We do not mock evolutionists because they have faith in their belief. The problem is that most evolutionists claim they are scientific and completely objective, when they obviously aren't. Faith is not a bad thing, but claiming one doesn't have it when it is obvious he/she does is a problem.

A simple eye consists of a few light-sensitive cells. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s it. The next step in complexity is some sort of lens, so that an image can be focused.

Adding something new is'nt a step - it's a huge leap. It may sound as simple as just adding a lens, but that lens has to be produced by genes, not just for the lens, but also for the nerve wiring, and other complex reactions with the rest of the eye. You don't just drop an engine in a car - it has to match the motor mounts, the wiring harness must match,etc. Not to mention, the engine itself must be perfectly balanced and tuned. The chances that all of those things just happen to work the first time by random coincidence is very unlikely. If only one thing goes wrong, then natural selection would eleminate the non-functional genes. Now imagine that evolutionists maintain that it not only happened - but happened independently up to 40 different times.

Note the "alledged" process below. In every stage they have added something new - not just a step.

I really don't mean to mock evo's for having faith, I am merely pointing out that we are the same; you have faith in your worldview and we have faith in ours. That's all, just a leveling of the playing field. At the same time, I think it odd that you evo's don't admit that it is faith, you actually say that you know evolution is true.

I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t speak for everyone, but I personally feel that there is faith associated with evolution and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m willing to admit that. However, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the same as religious faith.

Faith in religion means that you believe in your god or gods without a doubt, even if they cannot be seen. Religious faith is a substitute for proof: when thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an aspect of religion that science canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t explain, faith fills in the gap.

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the kind of faith I have in evolution. I have faith in the scientists who do the experiments and write the articles. I have faith that they did their work accurately and are presenting unbiased conclusions. I have faith in the methods used to date sediments and fossils, because I think theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re based on solid scientific laws and the samples are prepared meticulously.

In other words, I have faith in the current evidence supporting evolution. And based on that evidence, I think evolution is the most logical explanation for the diversity of life. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not saying IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m 100% sure itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s true, but in my opinion it fits the evidence better than any other theory.

This model of eye evolution IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m presenting you with is a hypothesis. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not saying IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m positive that it happened that way, and since an eye has never been produced in a lab I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have concrete evidence. I am not using Ã¢â‚¬Å“faithÃ¢â‚¬Â to fill in the gap where evidence belongs; IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not saying that IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure, without a doubt, that the eye evolved from a mutated protein and provided an advantage to the organism.

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the difference between religious faith and faith in science. I use mine to trust the evidence, not as a substitute for evidence.

Sediments and Fossils can't be dated - but some fossils do contain measurable amounts of carbon; and no it's not background, since the background amount is already subtracted from the ratio obtained. That would certainly falsify any possibility of these fossils being millions of years old as would DNA and soft tissue in dinosaur fossils.

Once we calibrate for pre-flood atmospheric conditions and massive volcanism after the flood, then these C-12/C-14 ratios give meaningful, predictible, and expected results for creationists.

Note the "alledged" process below. In every stage they have added something new - not just a step.

That picture does not imply the eye came about in only five steps. It would require a series of much smaller steps than what the picture shows. Between image one and two there would be several more intermediate stages.

I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t speak for everyone, but I personally feel that there is faith associated with evolution and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m willing to admit that. However, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the same as religious faith.

Faith in religion means that you believe in your god or gods without a doubt, even if they cannot be seen. Religious faith is a substitute for proof: when thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an aspect of religion that science canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t explain, faith fills in the gap.

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the kind of faith I have in evolution. I have faith in the scientists who do the experiments and write the articles. I have faith that they did their work accurately and are presenting unbiased conclusions. I have faith in the methods used to date sediments and fossils, because I think theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re based on solid scientific laws and the samples are prepared meticulously.

In other words, I have faith in the current evidence supporting evolution. And based on that evidence, I think evolution is the most logical explanation for the diversity of life. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not saying IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m 100% sure itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s true, but in my opinion it fits the evidence better than any other theory.

This model of eye evolution IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m presenting you with is a hypothesis. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not saying IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m positive that it happened that way, and since an eye has never been produced in a lab I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have concrete evidence. I am not using Ã¢â‚¬Å“faithÃ¢â‚¬Â to fill in the gap where evidence belongs; IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not saying that IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure, without a doubt, that the eye evolved from a mutated protein and provided an advantage to the organism.

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the difference between religious faith and faith in science. I use mine to trust the evidence, not as a substitute for evidence.

I could very easily change just a few words of what you're saying to make it work for the creationist.

The Biblical definition of the word "faith" fits either worldview:Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.(Hebrews 11:1)

Either of the first two Dictionary.com definitions works for both as well:1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.(the other definitions do not conflict either)

You can say you place your faith in evolution (your god) and the evolutionist scientists that show how the evidence fits in an evolved world/universe.

I can say I place my faith in God and in the creationist scientists that show how the evidence fits better in a created world/universe.

There is no difference!

The interesting thing is that the Bible has never been found to be wrong, while evolutionist theories have never been found to be right. People have tried, specifically, to prove the Bible wrong, and in every instance the opposite happened and the Bible was validated. People have also tried, specifically, to prove that evolution does happen, but have never been able to do so.

How can you continue to believe in something that has no foundation at all?(Please don't reply, just ponder this question on your own. Or better, with your parents, they brought you up to believe in the truth, based on an earlier post of yours.)

Edit:One more thing -You believe in something that can not be seen and/or proven = faith.I believe in Something that can not be seen and/or proven = faith.

The difference is this, I have a personal relationship with my Object of faith. He has revealed Himself to me. He has shown me things.

Has your current god done any of that? Could it? You can continue to imagine things to satisfy your desire to deny the truth, but that's all it ever will be - imaginations. (Note: do a concordance search in any Bible for the word "imagination", how often is it used to show how man defies God?)

That picture does not imply the eye came about in only five steps. It would require a series of much smaller steps than what the picture shows. Between image one and two there would be several more intermediate stages.

Exactly my point. Once you consider the uselessness of a gene that does'nt produce a functional lens - just a beginning - then natural selection would have no reason to favor such a tiny insignifigant mutation. And then every mutation afterwards would have to follow the path of functionality by chance because the first tiny step was not beneficial in any way.

Exactly my point. Once you consider the uselessness of a gene that does'nt produce a functional lens - just a beginning - then natural selection would have no reason to favor such a tiny insignifigant mutation. And then every mutation afterwards would have to follow the path of functionality by chance because the first tiny step was not beneficial in any way.Thanks.

How do you know that the first tiny step wasn't beneficial in any way? Why would you read that into any statement that has been made thus far?

Any difference could very easily make the difference between 2 different creatures. If all other attributes are the same except one can 'see' a little better than the other due to a minor change in its physical form. Then the one with the minor change will probably mate more often and successfully 'hunt' for its food.

Any change regardless of how minor could be the difference between which species lives and which on dies.

How do you know that the first tiny step wasn't beneficial in any way? Why would you read that into any statement that has been made thus far?

There is no way to just create a fully formed lens in one step; and if it is'nt fully formed, then it serves no purpose except to impair the vision the organism has already.

Farsightedness. If the eyeball is too short or the lens too flat or inflexible, the light rays entering the eye Ã¢â‚¬â€ particularly those from nearby objects Ã¢â‚¬â€ will not be brought to a focus by the time they strike the retina. Eyeglasses with convex lenses can correct the problem. Farsightedness is called hypermetropia.

Nearsightedness. If the eyeball is too long or the lens too spherical, the image of distant objects is brought to a focus in front of the retina and is out of focus again before the light strikes the retina. Nearby objects can be seen more easily. Eyeglasses with concave lenses correct this problem by diverging the light rays before they enter the eye. Nearsightedness is called myopia.

Any change regardless of how minor could be the difference between which species lives and which on dies.

I agree. The ones with impaired vision due to a lens that does'nt work; would be the first to die.